This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject ofHistory on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAnthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Ancient Africa (4th millennium BC - 6th/7th century AD) followingthis, contradicted bythis which uses 300 CE
Postclassical Africa (7th century-1250) the term postclassical has no support from sources, but the date range is supported by theGeneral History of Africa (this is the one I'm least happy with)
Early modern Africa (1800-1935) the term "early modern" has no usage, but Modern Africa starting from 1800 followsthis andthis. To clarify, from what I've seen no books periodise African history into colonial and postcolonial.
Africa since 1935 orContemporary Africa (1935-present) the 1935 break follows theGeneral History of Africa, books generally have a break between 1930-1945. The growth of independence movements is crucial to the postcolonial history, so it makes sense to start here.
@NutmegCoffeeTea Thank you for your edits, but I think it might be best to avoid using these terms where possible due to the complete lack of academic consensus and variety of usage. For example, "Postclassical Africa" is entirelyWP:Original research, in that it isn't proposed by anyWP:Reliable source.
The different regions of Africa developed at different times, meaning the terms "ancient" and "medieval" differ widely in when they refer to. For example,Mapungubwe is considered ancient in Zimbabwe despite existing from 1250-1300, andEmpire of Kitara in Uganda despite existing from circa 10th-15th century, while the ancient period in North Africa usually goes until 300 AD or the 7th century.Kowal2701 (talk)21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the same person proposing this, but the titles for the time periods are just because we needWP:Article titles. The sources above aren't indicative in any way of an academic consensus for the titles of the time periods, and in the absence of one we should avoid using them where possible. They're overly simplistic and inappropriate for different regions. What do you mean bythese are just headings?Kowal2701 (talk)21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current periodisation has a lot of problems, so I also prefer these proposals over the current ones. Contemporary for instance has strong source support and is a more standardized term with "contemporary history" being a well-known phrase.BlackVulcanX (talk)11:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the dates are necessary because the terms medieval, ancient etc. here don't have the European periodisation which the reader would be accustomed toKowal2701 (talk)21:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But your edit removed the dates. The terms are also incredibly Eurocentric. I'm going to revert back, but please don't revert again as that'sWP:Edit warring. The relevant process isWP:Bold, revert, discuss, and we're at the discussion phase. Can you explain why you think these terms should be included without dates?Kowal2701 (talk)20:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain the changes I’ve made, I added specific dates instead of centuries to make the headings less verbose, and added{{circa}} because some might not know what c. meansKowal2701 (talk)23:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t revert after every comment you make, it’s still edit warring even if its in slow motion. What do you mean by that?Kowal2701 (talk)08:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve comprehensively explained below why we shouldn’t use these terms, noones made any arguments in favour. PerWP:DETCON, consensus relies upon quality of argument made, not a headcountKowal2701 (talk)09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an excuse and your arguments are not persuasive. The dates are listed after some of them and can be added in cases where they aren't.BlackVulcanX (talk)09:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the title of volume 7 of theGeneral History of Africa. But I do get that it sounds a little sensationalist. Idk though, I think it encapsulates the colonial experience quite well (which the GHoA aimed to do). The sections going to have lots of social history and cover rebellions, all of which were put down. Do you have a suggestion for what it could be retitled?Kowal2701 (talk)07:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On periodization I err towards the UNESCO document. Its not that I necessarily agree with the terms but the article's scope "History of Africa" but that is what the reliable sources appear to use. If they are Eurocentric, then that is a problem external to Wikipedia. The goal is to reflect what reliable sources say, not to be "right" (perWP:NOTRIGHT). If sources on the history of Africa (as a whole) do not use names, then use that. Otherwise, use the second one (apologies for the non-answer, I'm not familiar with the study of Africa as a whole, only with West Africa).
Agreed, but a lot of these terms areWP:OR, the only one with source support is Medieval Africa, and it’s only one source. Ancient is used a lot, but not with a consistent set of datesKowal2701 (talk)07:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This debate could go in circles for years, unfortunately. In the absence of a generally accepted periodization for Africa that doesn't rely on European concepts, I think the only way to cut through the noise is to generally lean on the UNESCO GHOA, as @HetmanTheResearcher said. That doesn't necessarily mean using the descriptors like 'under colonial domination'. We can just go with the periodization, but the titles you proposed at the top of this thread seem reasonable as well - no need to restructure every 'history of Africa' article. We can wait for scholarship to come up w/ a better system. As long as 'pre-colonial' and 'post-colonial' are not names for eras, I'm good with whatever.Catjacket (talk)14:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Catjacket idk about the 6th century as a founding date, it contradicts the ancient section, and I can't find it in that source, idk whether a thesis on a different topic is the best source.This says in archaeology Ghana Empire refers to 3rd-13th centuries, andthis says from the 2nd century (although makes a fringe argument)Kowal2701 (talk)20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say 6th century as a founding date, it says that Ghana was a dominant regional player by the 6th century. Frankly all we know for sure is that it was powerful by the 800s, when it appeared in written sources. Unless there's an archaeological source somewhere that argues a more precise founding date, we probably shouldn't lean much on one or the other estimate.Catjacket (talk)20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...do we? Why can't we just say "Ghana existed for sure by this date", or "Ghana emerged sometime in the middle centuries of the 1st millennium CE."Catjacket (talk)21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a section break at the 7th century, if we discuss Wagadu prominently in the ancient section it implies it was founded between 3rd-7th centuryKowal2701 (talk)21:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that pre-7th century discussion of Ghana is limited to the Tichitt culture, its collapse during the Big Dry c. 400BCE-300CE, and the revival of some vague proto-Soninke world 300-700 CE. We can say that Ghana (along with Takrur, Djenne, Mema etc.) were established as actual states sometime during this period, but we can't speak on how it was constructed, what trade was going on, etc. We just don't have any sources for that period, including archaeology (to my knowledge - might be worth checking the few papers that have dealt w/ the Mema area, but I don't believe they speak to any kind of state structure).Catjacket (talk)08:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think you're right. The iron section does not fit at all with a discussion of early hominids. Maybe rename it 'early prehistory' or something.Catjacket (talk)12:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Mossi are within the Niger bend. I'm not a huge fan of that relatively arbitrary delineation but it's what was there so I didn't change it.Catjacket (talk)13:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agreed, the Mossi should be in the Sahel and Sudan section, and the other section renamed to The forest regions, it was just that the GHoA used the Niger bendKowal2701 (talk)15:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much information on Silla on hand, but I can dig back through my notes and find some stuff. If you make a page, I will help fill it out.Here andhere are some sources on the archaeology of Sinthiou Bara, which may have been Silla. Same author as the link you shared, but maybe will have more detail.Catjacket (talk)16:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This would have occurred 10 to 5 million years ago, but these claims are controversial because biologists and genetics have humans appearing around the last 70 thousand to 200 thousand years."
Can't find the 2nd edition to check, but in the 4th[3] no such statement can be found. And it makes no sense anyway, bipedalism didn't start in modern humans, so if there were bipedal apes 5 mya, does not contradict the much later emergence of anatomically modern humans, which occurred around 300000 ya anyway (according to latest research), not 70000 ya. And if the controversy is about the dates of bipedalism (10-5 mya), then the 'because' clause still makes no sense as the explanation of the source of the controversy.
I propose to remove this sentence all together, and change the previous one to "Africa was drying up and the savanna was encroaching on forested areas,which occurred sometime between 10 million and 5 million years ago." and cite the 4th edition instead.DxhaFFer (talk)09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.svg)
%2c_early_1900s%2c_Central_Africa%2c_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo%2c_Pende_people%2c_wood%2c_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG)
